Re: on NAT-PT

[itojun@iijlab.net]

	haven't you checked two of my messages started this thread?

>NAT-PT needs to be revisited:
>It needs to remove the DNS-ALG part in the v6 tov4 case,

	if you could do it without changing IPv6-only clients, i'm fine with
	that.

>it needs to limit the DOS thread and need to scale better,
>at least as well/bad as NAT.

	what kind of DoS?

	what kind of scalability differences do you see between v4-v4 NAT and
	v6-v4 NAT-PT?  i don't see any (except that NAT-PT might potentially
	need to support massive number of customers, depending on
	configuration - you can balance the load between NAT-PT translation
	boxes so it's no issue).

>A new RFC needs to define the tradeoff when to use it
>compare to using dual stack.

itojun